The Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework: Targets, indicators and measurability implications at global and national level - Summary Record - OECD.org
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Summary Record
OECD International Expert Workshop
The Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework:
Targets, indicators and measurability implications
at global and national level
26 February 2019
OECD Headquarters, Paris, France
Purpose of the workshop:
To bring together a range of experts and stakeholders from the policy, scientific, and NGO community, to
share and exchange views on the development of the post-2020 biodiversity framework with the aim to
better understand the measurability implications, at global and national levels, of possible targets. While
the Aichi Targets and its indicator set are a considerable improvement on the previous framework, the
post-2020 process offers an opportunity to enhance the measurability of the new framework. The workshop
will examine whether and how new structures can be leveraged to create more quantifiable targets, how
currently available data and indicators can be used to inform target creation, where the priorities lie and
where the key gaps remain.
Specific aims:
to share lessons from the existing Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the indicator framework used to
monitor progress towards these;
to consider options to improve on the existing structure and measurability of the targets;
to understand how the data available today at global and multi-country level and associated indicators
could be used to help inform possible future targets in the post-2020 framework;
to identify key gaps in the indicator suite, the feasibility of addressing these gaps and the implications
of this for creating SMARTer targets in the post-2020 framework.
Workshop participants:
More than 70 participants attended the workshop, including government representatives from the OECD
member countries and key partners such as Costa Rica, Indonesia as well as Egypt; international
organisations such as UN Environment-WCMC, IPBES, UNDP BIOFIN, UNSD; environmental NGOs
such as WWF, IUCN, BirdLife International and IDDRI; as well as representatives from business and civil
society. The participants list is available here.
A background paper had been prepared for the workshop to help inform participants and guide discussions.
Excerpts from the background paper are provided in the Annex to this Summary Record.
Further information, including the presentations, is available here: oe.cd/post-2020-biodiversity-workshop
2Key messages from the workshop
The current Aichi Biodiversity Targets have ambiguous language – several advocated
for greater simplicity and well-defined targets in the post-2020 global biodiversity
framework which would allow for a more consistent interpretation of targets, their
indicators and necessary actions.
The post-2020 biodiversity target and indicator framework should build on the elements
of the existing framework that were effective, and be developed in parallel, in an iterative
way. This should be based on indicators that are currently available, or that would be
feasible to develop (and to mobilise data for) in the near future.
The NGO proposal for the pyramid structure on the foundations and elements of a post-
2020 biodiversity framework is complementary to introducing potential categories of
indicators, including a sub-set of headline indicators, as proposed in the OECD
background paper. The criteria for the headline indicators would be that it is measurable
and comparable across countries. Such an approach could help to sequence and prioritise
efforts on a smaller set of pressure, state and response indicators that are most important
to measure in a comparable way across all countries.
A number of multi-country datasets already exist, covering biodiversity-relevant pressure,
state and response indicators, that would enable assessment of progress towards a post-
2020 global biodiversity framework in such a way so that it is measurable and comparable
across countries. In some cases these are indicators built up from national data; in others
they are global datasets that can be disaggregated to national scale in a comparable and
consistent way.
That further work and analysis is needed on indicators - they are the cornerstone of the
post-2020 biodiversity framework.
Mainstreaming biodiversity (both in terms of targets and indicators) needs greater
attention in the post-2020 biodiversity framework.
Further analysis by the OECD to help inform the development of the post-2020 process
was welcomed, in particular with regard to the targets and indicators, notably the pressures
and responses. Mainstreaming and resource mobilisation were highlighted as well. It was
also noted that the next iteration of the OECD report should also link more closely with
the SDGs.
It was noted that the summary record of the workshop should be used to inform the
regional consultation on the post-2020 biodiversity framework and other international
events such as the Trondheim Conference.
3Opening session
Simon Buckle (OECD) welcomed the participants to the workshop and provided opening remarks. He
underscored the scale of the biodiversity challenge and the importance of adopting a robust post-2020
framework, with specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic and time-bound targets (SMART). He outlined
the objectives for the workshop, emphasising it was intended to focus on the specific and measurable
elements of SMART, and that it was intended to be a technical expert workshop - not about national
positions. Dr. Buckle then introduced the other speakers in the opening session: Laure Ledoux (European
Commission), Moustafa Fouda (Egypt), as well as Basile van Havre (Co-Chair of the OEWG) who
provided a recorded message via video. Dr. Buckle congratulated Egypt on their successful presidency of
the CBD COP14 and thanked the European Commission for its financial support for the OECD programme
of work on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.
Laure Ledoux (European Commission) stressed the importance of SMART targets and a sound indicator
framework to monitor progress towards the post-2020 biodiversity targets. Dr. Ledoux highlighted the
potential for Parties to submit voluntary commitments under the new post-2020 biodiversity framework to
help build momentum national level actions, and that the biodiversity vision should be quantifiable and
communicable if it is to garner broad support. Further, Dr. Ledoux emphasised that discussion of the review
and implementation of the new framework must take place at the highest political level if the post-2020
framework is to succeed.
Moustafa Fouda (Egypt) highlighted the actions undertaken by Egypt (in its role as CBD COP14
Presidency) to promote biodiversity on an international stage, including the inaugural African Biodiversity
Ministerial summit, and the Egyptian initiative aimed at enhancing synergies across the Rio Conventions.
Dr. Fouda also called for biodiversity ambassadors to champion the cause of the post-2020 and Aichi
Biodiversity Targets in their own countries, highlighted the need for goals and targets that are easily
communicated to end users and the wider public, and underscored the importance of biodiversity to
cultures around the world. Dr Fouda outlined key principles to guide the development and implementation
of the post-2020 framework, including transparency, accessibility, engagement of all stakeholders and a
commitment to not leave anyone behind.
Basile van Havre (Co-Chair, OEWG on the post-2020 biodiversity framework), in a video message,
outlined the process leading up to the negotiations of the post-2020 biodiversity framework at CBD COP
15 in China. [link to video – TBC]
Session 1 Lessons from the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and indicators - and potential
structures for the post-2020 targets
Markus Lehmann (CBD) provided an overview of the current indicator framework under the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD), noting that there is a combination of generic and specific indicators and
that some Aichi Targets still lack indicators for monitoring progress. Dr. Lehmann outlined the process for
developing the post-2020 framework and stressed the importance of considering links with other
international processes and mechanisms. Finally, he encouraged participants to submit their views on the
CBD discussion paper on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework by 15 April, 2019.
Francis Ogwal (Co-Chair, OEWG on the post-2020 biodiversity framework) addressing the participants
remotely via video conference, noted the issues that have hampered progress under the Aichi targets and
re-enforced the need for SMARTer targets under the post-2020 framework, including close linkages
between the targets and the indicators. He further noted how the political nature of the negotiations leading
up to the current framework had resulted in a mission statement that is too long to be communicated easily
and the need for the post-2020 framework to integrate the Nagoya and Cartagena Protocols.
Anna Chenery (UN Environment-WCMC) presented on the lessons learned from the Biodiversity
Indicators Partnership (BIP), including insights into the current indicators and the features that make then
4successful, such as institutional support. She also noted that the uptake of indicators from the BIP at a
national level had been limited. She emphasised the need for the post-2020 targets and indicators to build
on existing work, to be developed in parallel through an iterative process, and to work across different
scales to ensure greater measurability of the post-2020 biodiversity framework. Ms Chenery also
highlighted that new technologies could help track and communicate progress on the targets (e.g. indicator
visualization platforms and model-based scenarios).
Katia Karousakis (OECD), drawing on the OECD background paper prepared for the workshop,
highlighted some of lessons learned, including successes and challenges, from the current Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as well as the current indicator suite (see Annex). Dr.
Karousakis highlighted how the current pressure-state-response target and indicator framework fit together
with the theory of change in terms of the responses: inputs, process, output, outcomes, and impacts (see
Figure 1 in the Annex). Highlighting the numerous indicative indicators in Dec XIII/28 and those under
the BIP, she proposed the possibility of introducing potential categories of indicators in the post-2020
biodiversity framework, including headline indicators for pressure, state and responses (see Figure 3 in the
Annex). The criteria for a headline indicator was proposed to be quantifiable and comparable across
countries in a consistent way. She noted that such a structure on categories for indicators might help to
prioritise, and converge efforts towards, the indicators that most need to be monitored.
Gunter Mittlacher (WWF) presented the proposed pyramid structure for the foundations and elements of a
post-2020 framework, submitted by a consortium of NGOs to the CBD1. He provided further detail on
what each layer of the pyramid could include, focussing predominantly on the objectives for the state of
biodiversity. He suggested several indicators to monitor progress towards the ‘apex’ which track different
dimensions of the state of biodiversity. These indicators are: the living planet index (abundance), species
habitat index (distribution), biodiversity intactness index (composition) and the IUCN Red List index
(extinction risk). He suggested that marine indicators, such as the Ocean Health Index, should also be
included alongside the list of terrestrial indices. He highlighted the need to define, in advance, the
regularity of monitoring, quantified target values and baselines against which progress is to be monitored.
Plenary discussion
Participants highlighted how information about the national uptake of indicators is available from
national reports, but seems to suggest it has been limited so far. It was suggested that this could stem
from national level agencies being worried about being made to look bad if indicators had declined,
and more work is need to address this challenge.
Some participants noted SMART targets are essential as they allow the monitoring of progress,
whereas others highlighted that SMART targets tend to be narrow as they are exclusively limited to
components that can be measurable. Consequently, by over-committing to SMART targets, some
important components needed to address the biodiversity crisis, which are not measurable might be
missed.
Participants also highlighted that indicators can be used in a variety of ways (e.g. to monitor a trend
or a distance to a certain threshold) and that in many cases they may not provide the complete story
of progress towards targets.
There was general agreement that the enabling conditions, such as financing and data mobilisation
for the post-2020 indicators and targets are very important and more effort is needed to track
progress in their development.
Several participants noted that international trade should be considered in the post-2020 biodiversity
framework
Increases in the engagement of other stakeholders, particularly non-state actors, was seen as
important and more communicable goals and indicators which can be decomposed by economic
sector may help.
Finally, close integration of the SDGs (particularly 14 and 15) with the post-2020 framework and
their targets and indicators was considered to be essential.
1
https://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/Post2020/postsbi/birdlife2.pdf
5Panel session on the structure of the post-2020 framework and their measurability implications
Andy Purvis, Natural History Museum, U.K. Prof. Purvis highlighted the three indicators proposed in the
paper “Aiming Higher to Bend the Biodiversity Curve”2, and how they could be used to measure the
progress of the post-2020 framework. He indicated that we will be unable to reverse biodiversity declines
by 2020, given the time it takes biological systems to respond and that the post-2020 targets must serves
as milestones towards an ambitious longer term vision for 2050. Finally, he discussed the importance of
understanding the linkages between the state of biodiversity, pressures and policy responses suggesting
more effort is needed to understand how policy responses are linked to changes in pressures and states in
order to identify effective interventions. He noted that the structures proposed and presented by WWF and
the OECD were very useful. He also noted that national circumstances across countries vary hugely and
that the post-2020 framework thus also need to ensure flexibility.
Tom Brooks (IUCN) highlighted a few points that were not covered in the OECD background paper,
notably the CBD mission and whether it will be inherited in the post-2020 framework. He emphasised the
importance of discussing the post-2020 mission, and noted that proposals on the formulation of the mission
that were submitted to CBD tend to converge on some common themes. Dr. Brooks suggested that the
mission could comprise elements that could be disaggregated in multiple ways, such as by elements of
biodiversity (e.g. species or ecosystems), sectors driving declines (e.g. agriculture) or geographically (e.g.
by country). He stressed the importance of considering the impacts and opportunities associated with
international co-operation and trade in particular, suggesting the OECD may be well placed to support
work in this area. To conclude, Dr. Brooks noted the upcoming IUCN World Conservation Congress which
will take place in June 2020 in Marseille, France.
Anne Teller (European Commission) highlighted the links between targets and indicators and stressed the
importance of developing them in parallel. She noted that a lack of indicators should not be a constraint on
the ambition of the targets. She also noted that while the five current strategic goals for biodiversity are
not quantified and measurable, that they were intended to be aspirational in nature and hence any post-
2020 biodiversity goals may also not need to be quantifiable. She indicated that concepts such as “bending
the curve” can be helpful for communicating to a wider audience, but that we must remember that while
these goals can and should be informed by science, their formulation is ultimately a political process. Ms.
Teller pointed out the potential trade-offs between level of ambition and uptake/ownership of targets. As
an example, she asked participants whether for agriculture and biodiversity it would be best to develop
targets and indicators in the biodiversity community (with the risk that they are not recognised in the
agriculture sector), or take an indicator from SDG 2.4.1, which has already agreed by agriculture ministers.
She also noted that a hierarchical framework for the structure of the post-2020 biodiversity framework
implies different levels of importance, and that this should perhaps be avoided.
Other key points that were raised in the plenary discussion following this included:
That we need to engage with sectors – to ensure targets and indicators adequately cover the biodiversity
mainstreaming agenda.
Structuring and compiling data according to a set of standardised principles, such as the SEEA, helps
ensure that the resulting biodiversity data are comparable with countries’ macroeconomic statistics
from national accounts (SNA). The SEEA can be a useful tool for understanding trade-offs, synergies
and impacts across economic and environmental domains.
2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0130-0
6Session 2 [Plenary]: Enhancing the measurability of the post-2020 biodiversity framework
Katia Karousakis, Will Symes and Edward Perry (OECD) provided an overview of the pressure-state-
response framework for indicators, and highlighted existing multi-country datasets and indicators for
tracking these three elements (see Tables 2 and 3 in the Annex) . They invited participants to share
information on other existing datasets or datasets under development that could be useful in tracking
progress towards biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, and data gaps they may be important to
fill. They highlighted the key questions for the break-out groups to consider, namely:
• What Pressure-State-Response (PSR) indicators can we measure today at multi-country level?
• What PSR data/indicators would we really like to be able to measure at global and national level
for headline indicators?
• What can we not measure today at multi-country level that might be useful for targets?
Session 2 [Break-out groups]: Enhancing the measurability of the post-2020 biodiversity framework
The break-out groups were intended to allow for a more focussed and in-depth discussion on the types of
indicators available, whether they are available at multi-country level in a comparable way, and whether
they could therefore serve as ‘headline’ indicators.
Break-out group 1: Targets, indicators and their measurability for the state of biodiversity
Chair: Stuart Butchart (BirdLife International)
Facilitator: Will Symes (OECD)
Participants in the break-out group on state indicators for biodiversity noted that:
There is a general lack of indicators on ecosystem services, which are very important but currently
not adequately captured.
There is also a lack of indicators on ecosystem functioning (and functional connectivity) and the
stocks and flows of ecosystem services are important.
Genetic diversity is very important, but how and what to measure to develop indicators is still a
work in progress. Participants noted however that there is currently some work looking at
gene/seed banks, which is promising for the development of future indicators
Having individual nationally-disaggregated and nationally-comparable data on the state of
biodiversity may not be as necessary (i.e. thus for headline indicators), as the state of biodiversity
does not conform to national boundaries. Instead, data collected nationally for the specific
domestic biodiversity context may probably be more useful in many cases.
There are many ways indicators are used at national level and thinking about this only from a
compliance perspective could be unhelpful.
Understanding the mechanistic links between the state of biodiversity and the pressures is key to
setting the appropriate level of ambition for the targets.
It was noted that the recently developed Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) is subject to ongoing
debate as to its utility and limitations, including in relation to its policy relevance, the plausibility
of reported values, and links to drivers. Recent developments are addressing some of these issues.
From a policy perspective and in the lead up to 2020, the relevant data needs to be available already
today or very soon, otherwise it is unlikely to be able to feed into the post-2020 process. Focussing
on the indicators available today and how to improve them is therefore imperative.
The current biodiversity indicator suite is still heavily focussed on terrestrial diversity, with larger
data gaps for marine and freshwater ecosystems.
7The breakout group examined the key questions and noted the following:
What state indicators can we measure today (or soon) at national scale across multiple countries?
Ecosystem extent/condition
Wetland Extent Trends Index (+Ramsar party reported trends)
Area of tree cover loss
Percentage natural habitat extent
Area of mangrove forest cover*
Percentage live coral cover*
Glacial mass balance (mm water equivalent)*
Mean polar sea ice extent*
Vegetation biomass
Biodiversity habitats index
Extent of primary habitat
Proportion of land that is degraded
Species abundance
Wild Bird Index (& various thematic disaggregations)*
Living Planet Index*
Species habitat index
Fish biomass for predatory fish*
Extinction risk/species status
Red List Index (& various thematic disaggregations)
Proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits*
Percentage of terrestrial domesticated animal breeds at risk
Community structure/composition
Marine trophic index*
Percentage change in local species richness*
Biodiversity Intactness Index
Mean species abundance
*only available for subset of countries or at regional scale
Which biodiversity variables are most important to measure at global and national scale for headline
indicators?
Extinction risk/rate (e.g. Red List Index for species)
Population trends (e.g. Living planet index, Species Habitat index etc)
+
Biotic integrity (e.g. Biodiversity intactness index, Mean species abundance)
Genetic diversity (No indicators currently available)
Ecosystem extent and condition (various indicators)
What additional indicators and data* are needed? What can we not measure today that might be
useful?
Trends in genetic diversity (global genome initiative, gene banks, barcoding)
Trends in risk of ecosystem collapse
Trends in ecosystem function
Marine, especially deep water
8Freshwater
Functional connectivity
*expanded and re- assessments of extinction risks (sampling strategy)
*expanded systematic population abundance monitoring to feed into LPI and extend beyond vertebrates
*links between state, pressures and responses
Other points:
Benefits/ecosystem services indicators excluded –IPBES identified indicators for 15/18 classes
of Nature’s Contributions to People
Some indicators are not always straightforward to define as state/pressure/response
For marine indicators, the national scale is less relevant
Need better joining up/streamlining of indicators for different policy processes (SDG/Aichi etc)
Build on work of Biodiversity Indicators Partnership, which vets potential indicators and
assesses fitness for purpose. Cross-reference this list to the BIP list.
Linkages between state, pressure and response indicators are important – in some cases there is a
need for supplementary data to facilitate this.
Break-out group 2: Data and indicators for tracking pressures and responses
Chair: Hesiquio Benitez
OECD Facilitator: Katia Karousakis
Participants in the break-out identified the range of pressure and response targets and indicators in the
current Aichi framework and began by discussing Aichi Target 3 on incentives. They noted the work of
the OECD on tracking economic instruments and finance for biodiversity, including that OECD Policy
Instruments for Environment (PINE) database collects information on what sectors the instruments apply
to, and for the biodiversity-relevant taxes, that information is also collected on whether the revenue is
earmarked. It was noted that the OECD would soon begin to collect data on Payments for Ecosystem
Services and on Biodiversity Offsets, and that this would be available in time for the post-2020 biodiversity
framework.
On data relevant to Aichi Target 11 on terrestrial and marine protected areas (already available by country
in a comparable way), it was noted that it would be important to try to make progress on developing
comparable data across countries on protected area effectiveness.
It was also noted that for some pressure indicators in the ocean/marine context, such as on proportion of
fish stock within biologically sustainable levels (collected by the FAO), disaggregation at national level
may not be required, and that regional and global level data might suffice.
It was noted that comparable cross-country data was particularly important for the response indicators
(predominantly for the outputs and outcomes).
Break-out group 3: Data and indicators for tracking enabling conditions
Chair: Laure Ledoux
OECD Facilitator: Edward Perry
Participants reiterated the importance of enabling conditions to facilitate an effective biodiversity response,
and the need for indicators to track progress. There was broad consensus that the enabling conditions that
need to be considered include governance, capacity, finance, communication and awareness, and data,
technology and information. Participants observed that these elements are interdependent, and it was
suggested that the principle of ‘mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive’ would be helpful when
selecting indicators for enabling conditions. It was suggested that links be made with the indicators that
exist, or will be developed, to monitor progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.
9Participants noted the importance of focussing not only on input and process response indicators, but also
output and outcome response indicators. The example of NBSAPs was used to support this point: tracking
the number of countries with an NBSAP is a simple indicator of enabling conditions but it does not provide
any information on whether the NBSAP has been implemented, or whether capacity exists to do so.
One participant recalled the proposal for a suite (or package) of indicators to address any one element or
theme. The example of Protected Areas (Pas) was provided whereby an increase in finance for PA’s would
represent an input response indicator, new legislation would represent an outcome response indicator, an
increase in coverage of Protected Areas would represent an outcome response indicator, and an
improvement in the number of species threatened would represent the eventual impact of the response.
Some participants pointed out that the enabling conditions considered most important may differ between
countries, hence the new framework should allow flexibility for countries to choose and report against their
own indicators for enabling conditions.
Participants discussed the importance of improving quality and accessibility of biodiversity information.
Several mentioned the need for targets and indicators that capture whether countries have publically
available information on their biodiversity e.g. national biodiversity information facilities. One
recommendation was to frame targets and indicators around the Voluntary Guidance to Improve the
Accessibility of Biodiversity-related Data and Information adopted at CBD COP13.
It was suggested that resource mobilisation was an over-arching issue that merits its own target and
indicator(s). It was pointed out that not all countries are yet tracking public biodiversity finance (e.g. direct
expenditures) in a consistent and comparable way. It was noted that in the short term it would be feasible
for countries to monitor and track the percentage of the Ministry of Environment’s budget towards
biodiversity or Protected Areas. Governments could aim to prioritise providing information on the
percentage of public expenditure allocated to biodiversity or biodiversity finance as a percentage of GDP.
Some countries already provide this information. In the future, it would also be important to track data
(and develop indicators) on finance flows from the private sector and NGOs.
Closing session (including next steps)
Katia Karousakis (OECD) highlighted next steps proposed for the OECD project. She noted that the
discussions and insights from the workshop would be incorporated into the next draft of the OECD
background paper on The Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework: Targets, indicator and measurability
implications at global and national level. In the meantime, a draft summary record of the workshop would
be prepared, including key concepts from the background paper, circulated for review to the workshop
participants, and made available in time for the next regional consultation workshop on the psot-2020
biodiversity framework taking place on 19-21 March, 2019 in Bonn, Germany.
Markus Lehmann (CBD) highlighted a number of upcoming events relevant to the post-2020 biodiversity
framework, notably the regional consultation workshops and the Trondheim Conference in July 2019.
Rodolfo Lacy (OECD Environment Director) provided closing remarks to the workshop. He reiterated the
urgency of addressing the global biodiversity challenge, citing also the recently published study showing
that 40% of insect species are threatened with extinction, as a case in point. Mr. Lacy highlighted the need
for a representative and comprehensive indicator suite for monitoring progress towards the post-2020
biodiversity framework. He noted that key data gaps remain, particularly in relation to genetic diversity,
oceans and the effectiveness of our policy responses to name only three. Mr Lacy thanked the participants
for their constructive inputs, noting that the workshop was also intended to help foster a stronger science-
policy interface, and encouraged further co-operation in advance of CBD COP15 when the post-2020
framework will be adopted.
10Annex: Excerpts from the OECD background paper on
The Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework:
Targets, indicators and measurability implications
at global and national level
1. THE 2011-2020 AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS AND THE TRANSITION TO THE POST-
2020 BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK
1.1. The current and evolving international context under the CBD
The 2011-2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets are a set of 5 strategic goals and 20 targets that Parties to the
UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are intended to use as a guiding framework for their
national commitments towards biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and the equitable sharing of its
benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. As these Targets will expire in 2020, Parties to the CBD
will need to adopt a revised suite of targets for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Agreement
on this is also likely to have implications for two of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), namely
SDG 14 on Life under Water and SDG 15 on Life on Land, as several of the targets therein come directly
from the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and are therefore also due to expire in 2020.
The 2011-2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity was a significant improvement to the one preceding it. The
Aichi Biodiversity Targets set out a flexible framework that Parties are encouraged to use at the national
level, inter alia, to guide their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). These 20
targets resulted in the need to re-convene an Ad-Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on indicators for
the Strategic Plan, in order to provide guidance on global and national indicators needed to measure
progress towards the achievement of the Aichi Targets.3 This process led to the adoption of CBD COP
Decision XIII/28, in 2015, on Indicators for the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets4.
While the global biodiversity indicators are improving5 and efforts are underway to address the remaining
data gaps through initiatives such as the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP), it remains inherently
difficult to measure progress towards the Aichi Targets at national level in a consistent way. This is in
contrast to, for example, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the recent Paris
Agreement, through which an international climate goal has been set (i.e., to keep global temperature rise
in this century well below 2 degrees centigrade) and Parties are required to put forward Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs). The NDCs therefore create a bottom-up approach, to complement the
top-down approach, helping to bridge the two and therefore also serve to provide transparency on whether
the aggregated NDCs are sufficient to achieve the international goal. Such a framework could arguably
also be useful in the context of the CBD.
While efforts to mitigate climate change, however, can be measured in a single unit of tCO2e, efforts to
mitigate biodiversity loss and degradation cannot be adequately captured in a single indicator. Measuring
performance therefore requires multiple different indicators (e.g., reduce forest loss, reduce the number
of threatened species). Additionally, the agreed goals and targets of the post-2020 biodiversity framework
will have implications for their measurability at both a global and national level. Further consideration
needs to be given to how the actual objectives of any post-2020 framework for biodiversity will enable
an assessment of their progress and the contributions that individual nations are making towards the
3
UNEP/CBD/ID/AHTEG/2015/1/3
4
CBD/COP/Decision XIII/28
5
Both in terms of the comprehensiveness of what is being monitored (for the 2011-2020 Aichi Targets) and the means
of monitoring.
11international goals. Ideally, all targets would be specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic and time-bound
(SMART).
The post-2020 biodiversity framework will need to reflect the challenges encountered in 2011-2020 and
how they can better be addressed, the relevant targets of the SDGs, among other issues. CBD COP14 in
Egypt adopted a number of decisions relevant to the post-2020 biodiversity framework, which include:
Decision 14/1: Updated assessment of progress towards selected Aichi Biodiversity Targets
and options to accelerate progress.
Decision 14/34: Comprehensive and participatory process for the preparation of the post-2020
global biodiversity framework.
Following a CBD invitation for views on the preparation, scope and content of the post-2020 global
biodiversity framework, 95 submissions, from governments, international organisations, NGOs and
others, were received6. A synthesis of views was made available on 24 January 2019
[CBD/POST2020/1/INF/1], together with a summary of the synthesis on 25 January 2019
[CBD/Post2020/PREP/1/1]. Para 9 (h) and (j) of this latter document state:
(h) The different elements of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should
be linked through a conceptual framework. Some have suggested that this should be based
on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity while others have suggested alternative approaches,
including a pyramid approach with layers of objectives, actions and targets in support of an
“apex goal” and combinations of outcome and output targets;
(j) The post-2020 global biodiversity framework should contain targets which are
specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic and time-bound. These targets should be
knowledge-based, including on scientific and traditional knowledge, address both desired
outcomes and processes, be easy to communicate and be designed to galvanize action across
society. There is support for using the Aichi Biodiversity Target as a starting point for
discussing future targets. Some expressed the view that changes to the Aichi Targets should
be kept limited. Others suggested more comprehensive changes, and numerous suggestions
for additional or revised targets have been proposed;
1.2. Aims and objectives of this work
The objectives of this work are to take stock of the lessons learned from the current biodiversity
framework, as these relate to targets and indicators, and to examine the measurability implications of
possible new biodiversity (goals and) targets under the post-2020 biodiversity framework, at both global
and national level. This background paper is intended to facilitate discussions on this issue, at the OECD
workshop on February 26, 2019. This paper summarises lessons learned from the Aichi Biodiversity
Targets to date, including the successes and challenges, as these relate to measurability, and explores
opportunities for improvement in the post-2020 biodiversity framework. It provides an initial overview
of multicounty datasets that could be used to help identify what type of targets and associated indicators
could be developed so as to enhance measurability, at both global and national level, of the post-2020
biodiversity framework.
To this end, the workshop is intended to provide a platform for discussion and exchange of views, notably
as it relates to CBD Decision 14/34, para 12, a, b, c, j, to consider:
(a) Scope, elements and structure of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework;
(b) Considerations related to ambitious, realistic and, where possible, measurable,
time-bound targets and corresponding indicators, reporting and monitoring frameworks
and baselines to be developed in a coherent way;
6
https://www.cbd.int/post2020/submissions/
12(c) Mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing implementation, including through the
use of indicators and the alignment of national reporting under the Convention and its
Protocols;
(j) Approaches, implications and opportunities for, enhancing mainstreaming;
The overarching objective of this project is to provide technical analysis to help to inform the post-2020
biodiversity decision-making process. This work does not intend to make any presuppositions with regard
to the ambition of any possible targets.
1.3. Environmental targets and indicators: Principles, criteria, concepts
It may be useful, at the outset, to recall some general principles, criteria and concepts relevant to
environmental targets and indicators, and how these have been related to biodiversity thus far.
Environmental targets should, ideally, be specific, measurable, and time-bound. A set of criteria has been
developed by the OECD to help guide the design of environmental indicators. It states that all indicators
should be assessed/evaluated according to their (i) policy relevance, (ii) analytical soundness, and (iii)
measurability (OECD, 1993). The CBD has also noted that the ideal indicator for measuring progress
should be (CBD, Examination of the outcome-oriented goals and targets (and associated indicators) and
consideration of their possible adjustment for the period beyond 2010., 2010):
“policy-relevant and meaningful, biodiversity relevant, scientifically sound, accepted by a
broad public, lend itself to affordable monitoring and modelling, and be sensitive enough
to detect changes in systems with in timeframes and on scales relevant to decision-
making”
These criteria have also been put forward in the so-called “SMART” concept of targets which the CBD
defines as (CBD, Examination of the outcome-oriented goals and targets (and associated indicators) and
consideration of their possible adjustment for the period beyond 2010., 2010) :
Specific
Measurable
Ambitious
Realistic, and
Time-bound.
The Pressure-State-Response model provides a commonly accepted framework for identifying and
structuring indicators. It distinguishes indicators of environmental pressures (both direct and indirect),
indicators of environmental conditions, and indicators of societal responses. Societal responses can be
further disaggregated into those undertaken by government, households, and business (OECD, 2001). In
this paper, responses focus more heavily on those by government. When designing the current biodiversity
framework in 2010, the Parties to the CBD adopted a modified Driver-Pressure-State-Impact/Benefit-
Response framework for applying the indicators to be consistent with Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and
the Aichi targets (CBD, Examination of the outcome-oriented goals and targets (and associated indicators)
and consideration of their possible adjustment for the period beyond 2010., 2010).
With this in mind, and following the literature on the theory of change, the types of response
indicators can be further compartmentalised into inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes and impacts
(Table 1). Thus, if the responses are effective (and lead, in the last stage, to positive impacts), they
should manifest in an improvement in the state of biodiversity.
13Table 1. Types of Responses and the Theory of Change
Indicator
Definition Examples
type
Measure the material and immaterial pre-conditions
Budget allocated for biodiversity
Input and resources - both human and financial - provided
Number of staff
for an activity, project, programme or intervention
Measure the progress of processes or actions that use
Establish an inter-Ministerial
Process inputs and ways in which program services and goods
Committee for biodiversity
are provided
New legal or policy instruments
Studies such as National
Output Measure the quantity, quality, and efficiency of
Ecosystem Assessments
production of goods or services as a result of an
activity, project, programme or intervention Biodiversity and ecosystem
values are integrated into
national accounts
Outcome Measure the intermediate broader results achieved Reduced pesticide use
through the provision of outputs Larger protected areas
Improved condition of
Impact Measure the quality and quantity of long-term results biodiversity and sustainability of
generated as a result of achieving specific outcomes ecosystem services, such as
number of threatened species
Source: Adapted from OECD (Mainstreaming Biodiversity for Sustainable Development, 2018), Mainstreaming Biodiversity for
Sustainable Development.
Figure 1: A schematic of the pressure-state-response indicator framework
and how it relates to the theory of change
Source: OECD (2019), Presentation at the OECD workshop on February 26, 2019.
In the context of biodiversity, suggestions for target and indicator development are briefly summarised
here. (Butchart, Di Marco, & Watson, 2016) argue that ideally, targets should avoid using ambiguous
language, setting goals that are unquantifiable and introducing redundant or complex terms that are open
to interpretation, and clear definitions of the terms used should be readily available with the targets
themselves. They also state that specific, quantifiable targets, with an established timeframe create greater
clarity and transparency surrounding the actions required.
Di Marco et al. (Global Biodiversity Targets Require Both Sufficiency and Efficiency, 2016) state: An
important part of an efficient global plan for biodiversity conservation is the establishment of an efficient
framework for monitoring progress toward targets. However, the set of indicators used for target
monitoring is sometimes inadequate, hindering the ability to accurately monitor some of the targets
(Shepherd, et al., 2016).
14(Kuempel, Chauvenet, & Possingham, 2016) suggest that identifying a comprehensive set of indicators,
which are able to represent the changing state of a study system (e.g., the threatened species of a country),
is an important step to be taken every time new targets are being defined. For each indicator, it is important
to clarify whether it refers to conservation outputs (e.g., new legislation for protected areas), outcomes
(e.g., greater coverage of protected areas) and impacts (e.g. higher species abundance), what is the
availability of baseline data, and what is the cost of collecting and maintaining new data.
2.THE AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS AND THE CURRENT SET OF INDICATORS
2.1 The Aichi Biodiversity Targets: An overview and some characteristics
Table 2.1 summarises the characteristics of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets in terms of whether: (i) they
reflect Pressure-State-Response variables; (ii) if a Response variable, whether they relate to inputs,
processes, outputs, outcomes or impacts (see Table 2); and (iii) the target is quantitatively specific.
The Aichi Biodiversity Targets are therefore composed of 10 targets that contain elements referring to the
state of biodiversity, 4 that refer to the pressures, and 12 on responses (where sometimes a target covers
multiple elements). Of the Aichi targets that can be classified as ‘response’ targets, there are 2 focussing
on inputs, 6 on processes, 5 on outputs and 5 on outcomes.
Table 2. Characteristics of the 2011-2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets
Aichi Pressure-State-Response Input-Process-Output- Quantified or quantitatively
Target Outcome-Impact specific target
1 State No
2 Response Process No
3 Response Output No
4 Response Input, process No
(and outcome but not defined)
5 State (and Pressure) Partially
6 Response, Pressure, State Output and outcome Implicitly (100% target)
7 Response Output Implicitly (100% target)
8 Pressure Implicitly (100% target)
9 State, Response Process and output No
10 Pressure No
11 Response Output Yes, partially
12 State Outcome Implicitly and partially
13 State, Response Process No
14 State Outcome No
15 State, Response Outcome Partially (15% restoration)
16 Response Process Yes, binary
17 Response Process Yes, binary
18 State No
19 State No
20 Response Input No but yes in further decisions
(i.e. doubling)
Source: OECD (2019), The Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework: Targets, indicators and measurability
implications at global and national level [Background paper prepared for the workshop].
152.2 The indicator suite for the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the BIP
Decision XIII/28 of the CBD COP welcomed an updated list of indicators for the Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011-2020 and also emphasised that the list of indicators provides a flexible framework for
Parties to adapt, as appropriate, to their national priorities and circumstances. The indicative list of
indicators covers 98 specific indicators, 35 of which are highlighted as having potential for disaggregation
to the national level (BIP, 2018). The BIP (2018) document also notes, however, that the uptake of these
indicators by countries has been limited to date.
It would be interesting to undertake an inventory of the indicators being used at national level, as reported
in the 6th National Reports, to monitor progress towards each of the Aichi Targets, and to develop
summary statistics on the frequency of use of each of the indicators across all the National Reports. Such
analysis would, in essence, help to create a baseline of information on what indicators are currently being
used at national level, and could help to inform the post-2020 biodiversity framework with respect to the
indicators that are most frequently used.
Aiming to support the development of indicators via a more top-down approach, the Biodiversity
Indicators Partnership (BIP) is a global initiative to promote the development and delivery of biodiversity
indicators7. As of the end of 2018, the BIP has over 60 partner organisations and includes 64 indicators
accepted for monitoring progress towards the Aichi targets8. The BIP uses an extended Pressure-State-
Response (P-S-R) framework that includes a fourth category, Benefit, to classify indicators which track
the benefits that biodiversity provides to people, such as ecosystem services. The P-S-R-B categories are
designated by the creators/developers of the indicators.
3. NEW DEVELOPMENTS RELEVANT TO THE POST-2020 BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK
3.1 On the structure of the post-2020 biodiversity framework (and its measurability
implications)
The current structure of the Aichi Targets and the indicator suite can be described as flat, where the 20
targets can be considered to be equally important. The 5 strategic goals represent “aspirations for
achievement at a global level”9 which are unquantifiable. Beyond the targets and strategic goals, there is
also a short vision statement and longer mission, from which the strategic goals are taken.
Following the recent submission of views on the post-2020 biodiversity framework, and as noted earlier,
CBD/Post2020/PREP/1/1, Para 9, h includes the following language:
(h) The different elements of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework should be linked
through a conceptual framework. Some have suggested that this should be based on the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity while others have suggested alternative approaches,
including a pyramid approach with layers of objectives, actions and targets in support of
an “apex goal” and combinations of outcome and output targets;
More specifically, a submission by a consortium of NGOs10 proposes a new logic structure for the
biodiversity framework (Figure 2), which places an overarching “apex” goal at the top, supported by
7
The primary role of the BIP is to serve the global user community by responding to the indicator requests of the
CBD and other biodiversity-related Conventions, for IPBES, for reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals,
and for use by national and regional governments.
8
The BIP and its’ Steering Committee acts as a gatekeeper, assessing each indicator for certain data and
coverage requirements before being accepted. Another round of review for additional proposed indicators
for the BIP is currently underway.
9
https://www.cbd.int/sp/elements/
10
Birdlife International, Conservation International, Global Youth Biodiversity Network, International Fund for
Animal Welfare, Rare, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Nature Conservancy, The Pew Charitable
Trusts, Wildlife Conservation Society and WWF.
16objectives, actions and finally, enabling conditions. Under their proposal, the “apex” goal would be
focused, quantifiable and communicable, analogous to the 2 degree target of the Paris Agreement. Below
the apex goal, there is an explicit division between the objectives, which are measures of the state of
biodiversity, and the actions needed to achieve the objectives (response targets). Finally enabling
conditions, include good governance, financing, capacity building and communications, form the
foundations that underpin the actions to achieve the objectives. The framework also calls for the
‘objective’ targets to be spatially-based and quantifiable.
Figure 2. Foundations, building blocks and elements of a post-2020 framework
Source: Key Elements and Innovations for the CBD’s Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework: A Collaborative Discussion
Piece. https://www.conservation.org/publications/Documents/Post-2020-Discussion-Paper-October-2018.pdf
How to interpret Figure 2 in terms of Table 1 in section 1 above, and the possible ways to describe
responses in terms of inputs, process, output, outcome and impact? The “enabling conditions” in Figure
2 would seem to align most closely with inputs (e.g. finance, capacity building) and processes (e.g. good
governance, capacity building), whereas the “actions” in Figure 3 seem to align more closely with
“outputs” in Table 1.1.
With respect to indicators, an approach that has been adopted in the development the OECD Green
Growth Indicators (OECD, 2017) work has been to identify a smaller set of headline indicators from the
broader set of about 50 green growth indicators. One of the criteria that needs to be met in order for an
indicator to be a headline indicator is that it is measurable and comparable across countries. Following
this approach here, a new possible categorisation of indicators for the post-2020 biodiversity framework
is depicted below in Figure 3, (i.e., as it relates to the measurability of the framework).
Quantified headline indicators. These could be composed of a smaller set of e.g. 5 to
20/30 indicators, covering pressure, state, and response variables, which are
measurable and comparable at both global and national level. The response indicators
could include a combination of input, process, output, outcome and impact indicators
Wider set of accompanying indicators (e.g. many more, not necessarily comparable at
national level).
If helpful, a separate category on enabling conditions (i.e. responses, with a focus on
inputs and process).
17Figure 3. Potential categories of indicators for the post-2020 biodiversity framework
Source: OECD (2019), The Post-2020 Biodiversity framework: Targets, indicator and
measurability implications at global and national level.
On enhancing the measurability of the post-2020 framework at global and national level
Various approaches have been taken to evaluate progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Perhaps
the most notable of these are the methods adopted by the GBO4, which may be considered to be a top-
down approach, and the method via comparing progress based on the CBD National Reports, which can
be considered a bottom-up approach (Figure 4 a and b). Both of these approaches are based, arguably to
a large extent, on qualitative approaches.
In contrast, the approaches used under, for example, the UNFCCC and the OECD Green Growth
Indicators framework, are in many ways, more quantitative (Figure 4 c). The question on enhancing the
measurability of the post-2020 framework can thus be considered a question of how to evolve from
approaches such as (a) and (b) in Figure 4, to (c).
18Figure 4. Various ways to measure progress
Source: CBD (Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 - Summary and Conclusions, 2014), Global Biodiversity Outlook
4; SCBD presentation at regional consultation workshop, Japan, 28 January, 2019; OECD (Green Growth
Indicators 2017, 2017), Green Growth Indicators 2017.
In order to help inform the discussion on how one might enhance the measurability of the post-2020
biodiversity framework, it may be useful to consider the existing data sources for natural assets that are
available at the multi-country level. The review below builds strongly on a study on Measuring Green
Growth at Country Level undertaken by Narloch, Kozluk, and Lloyd (2016). Many of the categories in
the report, notably those classified as biodiversity, land and soil resources, forests and timber, oceans
and fish stock, are relevant to the CBD and the existing suite of Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Table 3 and
Table 4 below present excerpts of the work as relevant for the CBD, and adapt and provide updates
with additional data that has become available since then (e.g., CCI-Land Cover data). The tables also
include efforts currently underway to collect additional data to increase country coverage (e.g. on
government support to fisheries), and attempts to clarify which of these multi-country datasets reflect
pressure, state, or response variables.
19Table 3. Multi-country data sources for natural assets, state and pressures (to be further developed)
Measurement aspect
Measurement
(and type: pressure, state, Potential indicators Data source Data coverage Notes Link
category
response)
Species abundance Global coverage; 2005 and http://data.worldbank.org/indi
Benefits index for biodiversity GEF Based on De Pandey et al., 2006
State 2008 only cator/ER.BDV.TOTL.XQ
Species abundance Local biodiversity intactness Global, 2005 snapshot, Shows the relative change in local https://www.nature.com/articl
PREDICTS
State index predicted to 2095 biodiversity es/nature14324
Trends in extinction risk IUCN Red List of threatened species Global coverage; revised Can be used in many ways already reports http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/dat
Red List Index
State (from IUCN Red List Partnership) regularly on progress towards 10 of the Aichi Targets a-00605-en
Largest collection of biodiversity data
Species Occurrence Global Biodiversity Information Global coverage over 1 billion globally, began from OECD
Species range shifts https://www.gbif.org/
State Facility records in >40,000 datasets recommendation. Needs to be processed in
order to be useful indicator.
Species knowledge, distribution Global coverage and time Built on data from GBIF and several other
Species range shifts Map of Life https://mol.org
State series sources (to be completed)
Biodiversity/ Species knowledge, population Shows the proportion of known species
Species Species status information Global coverage updated https://mol.org/indicators/cov
trends, distribution Map of Life and GBIF within a country about which information is
index twice a year erage
State available
Species abundance http://livingplanetindex.org/h
Living planet index WWF/ZSL Global, updated annually Already an indicator under the BIP
State ome/index
Global, and available at
national level. ProtConn Indicator of terrestrial protected area https://www.sciencedirect.co
Habitat connectivity
Protected Area connectivity DOPA/ EC JRC available for 2016 and 2018 connectivity. ProtConn (Protected m/science/article/pii/S00063
State
(and soon for 2010, 2012, Connected) 20717312284?via%3Dihub
2014, and for 2019)
Human impacts UNBC/WCS/ETH Global at 1km resolution, only Made from a composite of 8 different human https://datadryad.org/resourc
Human footprint index
Pressure Zurich/UQ/JCU/CUNY/CIESIN available for 1993 and 2009 impact proxies e/doi:10.5061/dryad.052q5
Restoration opportunities Atlas of Forest and Landscape Global 1km resolution Composite dataset based on potential habitat http://www.wri.org/applicatio
WRI/IUCN/UM
State Restoration Opportunities periodically updated models, human pressure and land cover ns/maps/flr-atlas/#
Current agricultural area under http://faostat3.fao.org/home/
Agricultural land FAO Global; yearly updates Official data, based on country self-reporting
different crops E
20You can also read
